Homer Lee Merritt v. Robert Wolford
16-0774
| W. Va. | Sep 5, 2017Background
- Decedent Glen Merritt Sr. executed a will on November 26, 2013, leaving most of his estate to his stepchild Teresa Wolford and her husband Robert Wolford.
- Decedent died in October 2015; Robert Wolford was appointed executor and the will was admitted to the county record.
- Petitioners (decedent’s children Homer Lee Merritt, Glen Dale Merritt, and Betty Jo Scott) filed suit in December 2015 to impeach the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.
- Respondent produced testimony from decedent’s treating physician (Dr. Francis), the attorney who drafted the will (Greg Smith), and an attorney who interviewed the decedent post-execution (Lawrence Webster) that the decedent was of sound mind and understood his estate when he executed the will.
- Petitioners submitted affidavits from lay witnesses (Richard Thomas, Betty Jo Scott, Roger Scott) asserting the decedent showed mental decline and confusion after his wife’s death.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for respondent in July 2016; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed by memorandum decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue of material fact exists to defeat summary judgment on testamentary capacity | Petitioners: lay affidavits show mental decline, memory loss, confusion around execution date | Respondent: medical and attorney testimony affirm capacity and proper execution formalities | Court: No genuine trialworthy issue; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether evidence supports undue influence claim | Petitioners: apparent disinheritance and decedent’s impaired state raise inference of undue influence | Respondent: no specific evidence of coercion; witnesses confirm decedent’s intentions | Court: Lay allegations insufficient; no material fact supporting undue influence |
| Whether petitioners’ affidavits satisfy burden to oppose summary judgment | Petitioners: affidavits create factual dispute requiring trial | Respondent: affidavits are general and speculative, insufficient to overcome affirmative evidence | Court: Affidavits are bald/general and do not create a “trialworthy” issue |
| Appropriateness of applying West Virginia summary judgment standards | Petitioners: disputed facts warrant denial of summary judgment | Respondent: proper application of summary judgment law where nonmoving party lacks sufficient evidence | Court: Affirmed application; summary judgment proper under cited standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (de novo review and standards for summary judgment)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of N.Y., 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (W. Va. 1963) (summary judgment granted only when no genuine issue of material fact exists)
- Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (W. Va. 1995) (burden shifts to nonmoving party to produce evidence showing genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must show more than a scintilla; evidence must be sufficient for a reasonable jury)
- James v. Knotts, 227 W.Va. 65, 705 S.E.2d 572 (W. Va. 2010) (test for testamentary capacity: understanding nature of will, recollection of property, and objects of bounty)
- Stewart v. Lyons, 54 W.Va. 665, 47 S.E. 442 (W. Va. 1903) (historic articulation that modest mental impairment does not invalidate a will if testator understood the transaction)